Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeremy Edward LISLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals his convictions after a bench trial of unlawful delivery of heroin, ORS 475.850 (Count 1); unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854 (Count 2); unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.870 (Count 3); unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.874 (Count 4); and felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270 (Count 5). The court merged the verdicts on Counts 1 and 2 and Counts 3 and 4.
We reject without discussion defendant's first assignment of error, in which he contends that a warrant for a police search of his hotel room was not supported by probable cause.
In his second assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the delivery counts, because they were based on a theory of delivery under State v. Boyd, 92 Or. App. 51, 756 P.2d 1276, rev. den., 307 Or. 77, 763 P.2d 731 (1988)—that defendant took a substantial step toward a completed delivery—that we have recently rejected in State v. Hubbell, 314 Or. App. 844, 500 P.3d 728 (2021), rev. allowed, 369 Or. 504, 506 P.3d 411 (2022). Defendant's trial occurred before we decided Hubbell, in which we overruled Boyd and held that an “attempted transfer” as used in the definition of “delivery,” ORS 475.005(8), refers to a particular act of transferring, not possession with a more generalized intent to deal the drugs at some undetermined point in the future. Hubbell, 314 Or. App. at 870, 500 P.3d 728.
The state concedes error under Hubbell. We agree and accept the state's concession. As in Hubbell, the evidence here was legally sufficient to support a finding of a substantial step toward the completed crime of delivery of a controlled substance. We therefore reverse the delivery convictions on Counts 1 and 3 and remand for entry of convictions for the lesser-included crimes of attempted delivery of heroin and methamphetamine.
Convictions on Counts 1 and 3 for delivery of heroin and methamphetamine reversed and remanded for entry of convictions for attempted delivery of heroin and methamphetamine; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A174530
Decided: April 27, 2022
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)